Response of Zinc and Sulphur on Growth and Yield of Onion

3885 words (16 pages) Essay in Biology

08/02/20 Biology Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

ABSTRACT

 The present investigation was conducted during winter season of 2011-2012 at research farm Department of Horticulture Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Allahabad (U.P.) the experiment was conducted in randomized block design with ten treatments and three replications. The response on onion (Allium cepa) on growth and yield to different levels of Zinc (Chelated) and Sulphur (Bentenite), Where Zinc levels under trail were 0, 10, 20 and 30 kg per hectare, while Sulphur levels were 0, 15, 30 and 45 kg per hectare. The statistical analysis using F test revealed that both zinc and Sulphur significantly affected all the growth parameters studied. Maximum leaf length (66.39 cm) was recorded in (1.5 m2) plots fertilized with 45 kg Sulphur and 30 kg zinc per hectare, whereas maximum plant heights (79.33 cm), bulb weight (297.87 g), yield (70.36 t ha-1) and benefit: cost ratio (2.73).

Keywords: Allium cepa, Onion, Yield, Zinc, Sulphur

 

INTRODUCTION

Onion (Allium cepa) belongs to the family Amaryllidaceous and is one of the most important monocotyledonous, cross-pollinated and cool season vegetable crops. Onion has its own distinctive flavor and is used in soups, meat dishes, salads, and Sandwiches, and is cooked alone as a vegetable. Its pungency is due to the presence of a volatile oil (allyl propyl disulphide) (Malik 1994). A pound of onion contain Protein 6 g, Fats 0.9g, Carbohydrate 44 g, Calcium 137 mg, Phosphorous 188 mg, Iron 2.1 mg, Thiamine 0.15mg, Riboflavin 0.1 mg, Niacin 0.6mg and Ascorbic acid 38 mg. (Thomson and Kelly 1982). Onion (Allium cepa L) is one of vegetables widely consumed due to its flavouring and health-promoting properties. It hasbeen reported that onion extract can be potent cardiovascular and anticancer agents with hypocholesterolemic,thrombolitic and antioxidant effects (Block, 1985). There is evidence that micronutrients such as Zn increasedthe dry yield of onion plants (Sliman et al., 1999).Also, Bybordi and Malakouti (1998) found that some micronutrients such as Zn and Sulphur gave higher yield of onion. Singh and Tiwari (1995) found that plantheight and bulb fresh weight, bulb diameters were highest with application of Zn and Sulphur. Sindhu and Tiwar (1993)studied the effects of micronutrients such as Zn and Sulphur on the yield and quality of onion plants and foundpositive effects of the micronutrients on the yield. On the other hand, Khalid (1996)reported that trace elements such as Zn and Sulphur increased the vegetative growth characters and yield. However, further investigation isneeded to explore the effects on onion plants grown under new-reclaimed lands. The present study wasdesigned to investigate the impact of micronutrients such as Zn and Sulphur on onion plants grown under sandy loamsoil conditions considering their growth and yield. Therefore, keeping in mind the above mentioned facts, the present experiment was carried out to find out the most suitable dose of zinc and sulphur fertilizers for onion cultivars, in order to obtain better and higher yield and growth under the agro-climatic conditions of the Allahabad.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field trial was conducted in a RBD with three replications and plot size of 1.5 m2 (spacing 10 cm x 20 cm) on onion cv. Pusa Red at Research Farm Department of Horticulture of Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences,(Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) Allahabad, during rabi season of 2011-12. Zinc and Sulphur was applied as basal dose @ 0, 10, 20 and 30 and 0, 15, 30 and 45 kg ha-1 respectively. The obtain higher plant height, more number of leaves per plant, length of leaves, fresh weight of bulb, neck diameter, polar diameter of bulb, equatorial diameter of bulb, and yield tonne ha-1 with application of T9 (Zn 30 kg + S 45 kg ha-1). Ten plants were randomly selected from each treatment. The data recorded on these factors were subjected to statistical analysis as described by Fisher and Yates (1949).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Plant height (cm)

The data pertaining to the plant height of onion under different treatments recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after transplanting (DAT) is show in Table 1. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum plant height (79.73 cm) followed by 77.73 cm with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (60.67 cm) was recorded with T0 (Control). Similar trend was observed at subsequent growth stages also. On increasing the dose of Zn and S from 10 kg ha-1 + 15 kg ha-1 to 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 increase in plant height was recorded. On decreasing the dose of Zn and S from 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 to 10 kg ha-1 + 15 kg ha-1 decreasing the plant height slightly was recorded. Hariyappa (2003).

 Number of leaves per plant

Number of leaves per plant under different treatments counted and recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after transplanting (DAT) is shown in Table 1. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum number of leaves per plant (9.00) followed by 8.40 with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (6.13) was recorded with T0 (Control). Similar trend was observed at subsequent growth stages also. On decreasing the dose of Zn and S from 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 to 10 kg ha-1 + 15 kg ha-1 decreasing the number of leaves per plant slightly was recorded. Number of leaves per plant increased with the increase in doses of Zinc and Sulphur, at all the stages of growth. Combination of 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 recorded maximum number of leaves per plant. Better photosynthetic activity might have result higher number of leaves per plant. Alam et al. (1999).

Length of leaves (cm)

Length of leaves under different treatments counted and recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after transplanting (DAT) is shown in Table 1. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum length of leaves (66.39 cm) followed by 64.6. cm with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (48.45 cm) was recorded with T0 (Control). Similar trend was observed at subsequent growth stages also. Better photosynthetic activity might have result higher length of leaves. Summan et al. (2002).

Size of bulb in polar diameter (cm)

Size of bulb in polar diameterunder different treatments recorded at is presented in Table 2. The table indicates that the effect of size of bulb in polar diameter at different treatments significant effect was observed. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum polar diameter(8.26 cm) followed by 7.57 cm with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (3.76 cm) was recorded with T0 (Control). Abbey et al. (2000).

Size of bulb in equatorial diameter (cm)

Size of bulb in equatorial diameterunder different treatments recorded at is presented in Table 2. The table indicates that the effect of size of bulb in equatorial diameterat different treatments significant effect was observed. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum equatorial diameter (7.77 cm) followed by 7.18 cm with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (3.36 cm) was recorded with T0 (Control). Abbey et al. (2000).

Neck diameter (cm)

Neck diameter under different treatments recorded at is presented in Table 2. is presented in Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.6. The analysis of variance has been given in appendix (6). The table indicates that the effect of neck diameter at different treatments significant effect was observed. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum neck diameter (2.30 cm) followed by 2.21 cm with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (1.53 cm) was recorded with T0 (Control). Similar trend was observed at subsequent growth stages also. Neck diameter increased with the increase in doses of Zinc and Sulphur, at all the stages of growth. Combination of 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 recorded maximum neck diameter. Better photosynthetic activity might have result higher neck diameter. Ansary et al. (2006).

Fresh weight of bulb (g)

Fresh weight under different treatments recorded at is presented in Table 2. The table indicates that the effect of fresh weight at different treatments significant effect was observed. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum fresh weight of bulb(297.87 g) followed by 242.07 g with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (47.00 g) was recorded with T0 (Control). Similar trend was observed at subsequent growth stages also. Fresh weight of bulb increased with the increase in doses of Zinc and Sulphur, at all the stages of growth. Combination of 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 recorded maximum fresh weight. Better photosynthetic activity might have result higher fresh weight. Ansary et al. (2006).

Yield per hectare (t ha-1)

Yield per hectareunder different treatments recorded at is presented in Table 2. The table indicates that the effect of yield per hectare at different treatments significant effect was observed. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) recorded maximum yield per hectare (70.36 t) followed by 57.18 tonne with T8 (20 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) and the minimum (11.10 t) was recorded with T0 (Control). Yield per hectare Fresh weight of bulb increased with the increase in doses of Zinc and Sulphur, at all the stages of growth. Combination of 30 kg ha-1 + 45 kg ha-1 recorded maximum yield per hectare. Treatment T9 (30 kg Zn ha-1 + 45 kg S ha-1) proved to be the appropriate combination of Zinc and Sulphur, which emerged as superior over all other treatments for yield of onion. Summan et al. (2002).

References

  • Abbey, L.; Joyce, D.C.; Aked, J.; Smith, B. (2002). Genotype, Sulphur Nutrition and Soil \ Type Effects on Growth and Dry-Matter Production of Spring Onion. Journal of Horticulture Science and Biotechnology. 77 (3): pp. 340-345.
  • Alam, M.D., Rahim, M.A. and Sultan, M.S. (1999). Effects of paclobutrazol and sulphur fertilizer on the growth and yield of garlic. Bangladesh J. T raining and Development. 12 (3): 404-407.
  • Ansary, S.H., Choudhary, J. and Sarkar, S. (2006). Post-harvest studies of onion (Allium cepa L.) grown under different moisture regimes and fertilizer levels. Crop Res., Hissar. 31 (3): 404-407.
  • Block, E., (1985). The chemistry of garlic and onions. Scientific American, 252: 94-99. Processing and Export of Spices. P 67.
  • Bybordi, A. and M.J. Malakouti, (1998). A study on the effects of different nitrogen source and its interaction with sulfur on onion yield and nitrate accumulation. Soil and Water Journal, 12(6): 42-48. Clevenger, J.F., 1928. Apparatus for determination of essential Oil. J.Amr. Pharm. Assoc., 17: 346-349.
  • Fisher, R.A. and Yates, R. (1949). Statistical analysis for Biological and Agricultural Research, Oliver and Boyed Edenberg, 5th Edition. pp 136-141.
  • Hariyappa, N., (2003). Effect of potassium and sulphur on growth, yield and quality parameters of onion (Allium cepa L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Oliver and Boyed Edenberg, 5th Edition. pp 136-141.
  • Khalid, Kh. A., (1996). Effect of fertilization on the growth, yield and chemical composition of some medicinal umbelleferous Plant. M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Al-Azhar Univ. Cairo. Egypt.
  • Malik, M.N. (1994). Bulb crops, Onion. In Horticulture. .National Book Foundation Islamabad Pakistan. pp. 500-501.
  • Sindhu, S.S. and R.S. Tiwari, (1993). Effect of micronutrients on yield and quality of onion (Allium cepa L.) cv. Pusa Red. Progressive Horticulture, 25(3-4): 176-180.
  • Singh, D.P. and R.S. Tiwari, (1995). Effect of micronutrients on growth and yield of onion (Allium cepa L.) Variety Pusa Red. Recent-Horticulture, 2(2): 70-77.
  • Sliman, Z.T., M.A. Abdelhakim and A.A. Omran, (1999). Response of onion to foliar application of some micronutrients. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 77(3): 983-993. Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1967. Statistical methods (6th Ed.) Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
  • Suman Smriti; Rajesh Kumar and Singh, S.K. (2002). Effect of Sulphur and Boron Nutrition on Growth, yield and quality of Onion (Allium cepa L.). Journal of Applied Biology. 12 (1/2): pp. 40-46.
  • Thomson, H.C. and W.C Kelly, (1982). Bulb crops vegetable crops. Ta Ta McGrew-Hill publishing company Limited, New York. Reprinted at Pakistan printing Works, Lahore. pp.611.

Table 1 Effect of different combinations of zinc and sulphure on plant height (cm), number of leaves per plant and length of leaves (cm) of onion (Allium cepa L.) at different intervals

Treatment

No.

Treatments

 

Plant height (cm)

Number of leaves per plant

Length of leaves (cm)

30 DAT

60 DAT

90 DAT

30 DAT

60 DAT

90 DAT

30 DAT

60 DAT

90 DAT

T0

Control

24.93

48.25

60.67

3.80

4.87

6.13

20.10

40.99

48.45

T1

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

33.41

62.59

70.75

4.80

5.67

7.20

27.57

54.49

59.55

T2

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

38.60

64.57

73.86

4.80

5.93

7.93

30.77

55.07

60.71

T3

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

39.90

65.07

74.94

5.00

6.00

7.93

31.19

56.81

61.79

T4

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

40.57

65.07

75.30

5.00

6.13

8.20

32.13

57.57

63.51

T5

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

41.90

66.87

75.97

5.00

6.20

8.20

32.43

57.61

63.85

T6

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

42.02

68.88

76.53

5.13

6.27

8.33

32.97

57.66

64.07

T7

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

42.37

69.04

76.73

5.13

6.33

8.33

33.37

59.12

64.49

T8

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

42.37

69.92

77.73

5.27

6.40

8.40

33.77

59.59

64.60

T9

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

42.90

71.29

79.33

5.33

6.40

9.00

36.27

60.02

66.39

C.D. (P = 0.05)

0.47

0.36

0.10

0.13

0.28

0.22

 

Table 2 Effect of different combinations of zinc and sulphure on polar diameter of bulb (cm), equatorial diameter of bulb (cm), neck diameter of bulb (cm), fresh weight of bulb (g) and bulb yield (t ha-1) of onion (Allium cepa L.) at different intervals

Treatment

 No.

 Treatments

 Polar

 diameter of

 bulb (cm)

 Equatorial diameter of bulb

 (cm)

 Neck diameter

 of bulb (cm)

 Bulb fresh

 weight (g)

 Bulb yield

 (t ha-1)

T0

Control

3.76

3.36

1.53

47.00

11.10

T1

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

4.72

4.41

1.65

97.65

23.07

T2

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

4.95

5.23

1.80

99.53

23.51

T3

Sulphur 15 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

5.35

5.26

1.85

100.87

23.83

T4

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

5.46

5.34

1.86

152.73

36.08

T5

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

6.02

6.00

1.86

155.47

36.72

T6

Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

6.14

6.52

1.94

159.07

37.57

T7

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 10 kg ha-1

6.21

6.55

2.07

215.87

50.99

T8

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 20 kg ha-1

7.57

7.18

2.21

242.07

57.18

T9

Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + Zinc 30 kg ha-1

8.26

7.77

2.30

297.87

70.36

C. D. (P = 0.05)

0.29

0.06

0.04

4.12

0.97

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Find out more

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please:

McAfee SECURE sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams Prices from
£124

Undergraduate 2:2 • 1000 words • 7 day delivery

Order now

Delivered on-time or your money back

Rated 4.6 out of 5 by
Reviews.co.uk Logo (188 Reviews)